Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's Rumored Reversible USB Connector Supported by Patent Filing, but Likely to Face Challenge

its a free country

So given that Apple has access to almost unlimited funds, Apple will be able to deal with the existing patent filed by another, smaller company?

Its a free country!
Free to step on your competitor with overpriced lawyers, which the competitor cannot afford.
Just squeeze him like a little bug.

I understand that this is an opinion of the person who wrote this article, and not Apple's, but just thinking about the possibility makes my stomach turn.



MacRumors said:
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Several leaked photos in recent days have suggested Apple may be looking to move to a reversible USB connector for its next-generation Lightning cables, making it easier for users to plug the cables into their computers, chargers, and other equipment with standard USB ports.

As noted by Patently Apple late last week, the idea is actually supported by an Apple patent application filed in January 2014 covering just such a design. The application was published just a few weeks ago and cites as priority a provisional patent application filed by Apple in January 2013.

Apple isn't the only company with this technology, however, so it is unclear exactly how this situation will play out given that Apple's patent application was only assigned to an examiner ten days ago. A California company by the name of UltraTek already holds a patent for the reversible connector and is selling cables through major online retailers.

UltraTek first filed a patent application for its "User-Friendly USB Connector" technology in 2009 and was awarded the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2010. In the patent, the company describes a cable with two sets of conductive contact pins that allow it to be inserted into a USB port in either orientation. More than just a patent, UltraTek is marketing its reversible cable under the brand name, Flipper, with distribution through TrippLite. Different configurations of the reversible USB cables can be purchased through retailers such as Newegg, TigerDirect and others for less than $10.

YouTube: video​
Given its resources, Apple would undoubtedly be able to overcome the existing patent protection on the concept of reversible USB connectors, either through licensing/purchasing the existing patent or finding a way to work around it. The existing patent is, however, rather broad in describing the concept of a reversible "Type A" USB connector of the sort apparently being considered by Apple.

Article Link: Apple's Rumored Reversible USB Connector Supported by Patent Filing, but Likely to Face Challenge
Click to expand...
 
baryon said:
Well if anyone successfully patents this then the whole thing becomes pointless anyway. The only way this would be nice if ALL USB connectors could work this way. If only high end cables from Apple that cost 3 times more, are white, and break twenty times faster than anything else will be reversible, then there's no point really.

I was hoping this would be the future of USB in general, that way every USB cable would be user friendly and you wouldn't have to look at a cable every time to check whether it's "user friendly" or not, and if it isn't, which way it goes in. Defeats the purpose completely.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether the patent holder licenses or keeps it exclusive. Since the cables we'll likely need have lightning on one end and USB on the other, hopefully Apple and/or UltraTek will license it such that a company like Monoprice can make cables we need for a more reasonable price (and hopefully more durable as well).
 
MaulRx said:
It allows you to bully others in court which apple is fond of doing.
Click to expand...

You don't (appear to) understand what patents are for. Companies invest in R&D to enable them to release new products on the market. Patents are there to enable these companies to earn back that investment on the market and to avoid others from stealing the idea without investing into R&D themselves. Without patents there would be no medicines for diseases and much less innovation in tech. Corporate espionage would increase incredibly and companies would stop investing in R&D.

Now there is something to be said for the restriction on trading of patents and patent trolls. But people that paint Apple and other large companies such as Samsung and Google as patent trolls obviously have no clue to what patents are really for and how the market currently works.
 
I know this seems very obvious in retrospect, but it's baffling that this wasn't part of the original design spec, or at least redesigned sometime since USB's introduction in 1996.
 
peterdevries said:
You don't (appear to) understand what patents are for. Companies invest in R&D to enable them to release new products on the market. Patents are there to enable these companies to earn back that investment on the market and to avoid others from stealing the idea without investing into R&D themselves. Without patents there would be no medicines for diseases and much less innovation in tech. Corporate espionage would increase incredibly and companies would stop investing in R&D.

Now there is something to be said for the restriction on trading of patents and patent trolls. But people that paint Apple and other large companies such as Samsung and Google as patent trolls obviously have no clue to what patents are really for and how the market currently works.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of how patents work. I'm also aware of how Apple works.
 
newdeal said:
I find it especially difficult on the xbox 360 where I am plugging it into a USB slot that is recessed and partially covered by a little flap. You can't see in there and all I can do is poke my USB stick around until it finally goes into something
Click to expand...

Worst USB port design ever easily... :mad: My daughters XBOX360 is tucked out of the way so it's a mission to get a USB cable plugged in the front.

When her battery pack needs charging, I die a little inside every time she asks me to plug it in. I may just get a short USB extension lead and leave it in there permanently. :D
 
It took ONLY 15 YEARS to come up with this extremely simple solution. And now everyone's acting like its the greatest invention in time. Where is this going....
 
Apple should focus on the mini-display port/ thunderbolt connector.

Unlike USB, MDP/TB it isn't easy to orient (I don't get how one sided USB is a problem when the arrows face up) The nearly square design also wears both at the cable and input site, so you end up with a rounded cable for a rounded socket.
 
mw360 said:
It works basically like this, for everybody, not just Apple... Patent applications consist of claims, in a long list. The first claims are broad and sweeping. The later claims get more and more specific.
The patent examiner essentially crosses off the claims in order until he/she encounters something novel. The application is then resubmitted with only the novel parts included. That's a very simplified version. There are plenty of resources on line for better detail.
Click to expand...

But UltraTek was awarded the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2010. So, where does that fit in your list with what Apple did here?
 
theheadguy said:
But UltraTek was awarded the patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2010. So, where does that fit in your list with what Apple did here?
Click to expand...

What?

The non-novel parts of Apple's claim will be discarded. Anything that remains will go forward and possibly be granted as a patent improving reversible USB plugs. The UltraTek patent will still stand, and Apple may have to pay royalties if that patent is broad enough, and UltraTek would have to pay Apple royalties if they wanted to use Apple's modifications.
 
Rogifan said:
Is Apple's patent for the exact same thing with the exact same implementation?
Click to expand...

Apple seems to have a much narrower definition of "exact same implementation" for something Apple wants to re-use, as compared to the broad expectation of protection for their own conceptual patents. I guess it's the same with most companies, but the zeal to which fans follow the same double standard continues to surprise me.
 
Last edited:
deviant said:
Guys, how the hell do you break your cables? I still got my 2006 iPod 5,5 cable and i still use it on my iPhone when i'm out and it works like a charm, it's still white (and that's an achievement!) and it's solid. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...
Cable? Are you talking about that carrying cord that comes with iPhones?
:cool:

----------
Dilster3k said:
1st World Problems: Can't put the effort to see if you're plugging in the USB correctly... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
All my problems are 1st world problems. Is Frankfurt behind or something?
 
deviant said:
Guys, how the hell do you break your cables? I still got my 2006 iPod 5,5 cable and i still use it on my iPhone when i'm out and it works like a charm, it's still white (and that's an achievement!) and it's solid. I just don't understand it.
Click to expand...

I don't know how it happens, but it does, to a lot of us. My solution is to buy third-party cables, which seem to last longer, and are cheaper, and it doesn't matter whether you can understand or not.
 
I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that this cable is Apple's and not just some third party cable that happens to be white.

If the person who sent this to the media wants everyone to believe it's an Apple cable, why didn't they show both ends of it with a Lightning connector on one end?
Why didn't they show the side of the USB connector that would have had an Apple logo?

Both would have been very simple to make the point. Yet, they went out of their way to hide the evidence...
 
SgtPepper12 said:
Plug in – doesn't work – turn around – plug in – doesn't work – turn around – plug in – does somehow work.

That actually happens a lot to me and others I know. And sure, it may not be a lot of time that a new connector saves, but why should we put up with this in the first place when it's technically perfectly feasible to build a reversible one? Also, it's really not about the time, it is about the unnecessary frustration. I swear, there's at least one person on this planet that's dead because of this.
Click to expand...

If you people have problems plugging in cables how does one wash up, cook dinner, wipe rear end or eat with a fork and spoon? :D
I hate to be a passenger in your car.:eek: Surprised that some of you can put the car in the proper gear or turn the wheel. Even checking the oil level must be rocket science for some of you.
 
swarmster said:
I imagine Apple's implementation might be a little different with regard to wiring, since I believe Lightning can assign pin functions on the fly?

Like so:
View attachment 486077

But they have a bunch of other implementations, too. They're presumably different somehow than UltraTek's.
View attachment 486078
Click to expand...
This really shouldn't be affected by the dynamic nature of Lightning. USB was always one-sided, so it just takes a straight pin-to-pin wiring plan, as your 2nd pic shows.

It really does seem like Apple might be years too late in this case. But then, I haven't read either patent.
 
That kid in the video is crazy, he didn't once Safely Remove Hardware. He was just like "I'm going to unplug this", and did it ! Unless someone off-camera was using the mouse. Man, that kind of reckless abandonment is normally reserved for Tony Hawks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back